Hashtag Never

There’s an ever-widening schism amongst “conservatives” in America. (I put that word in quotes, because I have no idea what it means anymore). One group, seemingly a shrinking minority, is in the #NeverTrump camp—they refuse for whatever reason, and there are a variety of them, to vote for Donald Trump for President. The other group could be categorized as “Never (and do we mean NEVER) Hillary”—they believe another Clinton presidency must be avoided at all costs. The latter makes the argument that not voting for Trump equals voting for Hillary (while conveniently ignoring, I’ll note, that many in the #NeverTrump camp argued that voting for Trump—instead of Cruz or Rubio—in the primary equaled voting for Hillary). Meanwhile, the former insists they are standing on principle and the blame for the outcome is not theirs, which is an easy and convenient stance to take in any situation.

Let me start by saying I understand both sides’ positions, and I agree with much of what they believe. For example, I believe Hillary Clinton is morally depraved. (I don’t have time to list all the reasons why, but her actions toward her husband’s rape victims, her stance on abortion, and her smug lies and defense of said lies in the wake of the September 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi that left four Americans dead are a fair starting point.) I believe Hillary Clinton’s policies are thoroughly incongruent with principles that have made America a strong, free, and prosperous nation. I believe a Hillary Clinton presidency would be disastrous for America, with far-ranging and long-lasting consequences. That sounds like hyperbole, but if anything, I think it is an understatement of how devastating electing her to the highest office in the land would be. I shudder at the liberal agenda she would foist upon America. She champions the murder of babies while desecrating natural and biological concepts of sex and gender. With her as president, we will undoubtedly lose the Supreme Court for a generation, and with it rights and freedoms we may never recover. Electing Hillary Clinton as president is nothing short of an act of national suicide.

Obviously then, we must do whatever it takes to stop her, right? Even if that means holding our nose at the ballot box. Even if that means choosing the lesser of two evils. Even if that means throwing in with someone we really don’t like. After all, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, isn’t he? Heck, we allied with Stalin to win World War II. Surely we can stomach Trump to stop Hillary, can’t we?

I would agree. Except that I also believe Donald Trump is morally depraved. (I don’t have time to list all the reasons why, but his cavalier attitude towards everything, his bragging about his extramarital affairs and how he’d want to date his daughter if she weren’t his daughter, his owning of strip clubs, and his coarse, profane language, smear tactics, and bullying in this campaign are a fair starting point.) I also believe Donald Trump’s policies (vacuous, waffling, and incomplete as they are) are thoroughly incongruent with principles that have made America a strong, free, and prosperous nation. I also believe a Donald Trump presidency would be disastrous for America, with far-ranging and long-lasting consequences. That is not hyperbole either. Trump is a repeat of Obama, stirring up a rabble of people clamoring for their false Messiah. Meanwhile, we know nothing about what he stands for because he’s never stood for anything except the promulgation of Donald J. Trump. Yet, his fervent and often furious followers lap up every word he spews, launching out at dissidents with vulgarity and violence. I am terrified of what this “movement” could become. Instead of joining it, true conservatives should seek to squelch it. And while there is reason to believe Trump’s Supreme Court nominees would be less liberal than Hillary’s, the long-term damage isn’t limited to the judicial branch. If Trump wins the White House, he becomes the de facto face of the GOP and of conservatives. Settling for Trump now means not winning back the White House with a true conservative for at least eight years. (When was the last time an incumbent lost to someone from his own party?) Furthermore, every Republican or conservative or even moderate will be tainted by Trump for decades, their campaigns drowned with a “he’s with Trump” millstone around its neck. Instead of siding with Trump to mitigate Hillary, I want conservatives to stand up and say—to shout—No! We want nothing to do with Trump. He’s as far away from where we stand as is Hillary. Anything less will be seen, rightly so to some degree, as an association that will take numerous election cycles to shake.

This all brings us to that phrase I used a moment ago, “the lesser of two evils.” I believe there are times when we do have to choose the lesser of two evils, so to speak. I’ve advocated for that. But there are two caveats. The first is that one of the two evils has to actually be lesser. I won’t advocate choosing between the equal of two evils. The second is that when evil is not just exaggeration but an accurate depiction of moral character, past behavior, and promised method of rule, that trite little phrase goes out the window. I refuse to choose actual evil.

So where does that leave me? I’m firmly planted in the #NeverTrump and #NeverHillary camp (And, for that matter, the #NeverBernie camp should Hillary be indicted or somehow fritter away the nomination). And I would encourage those of you who aren’t with me—and particularly those of you who are in the Trump, Clinton, or Sanders camp—to study history with me.

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are socialists. The only difference is Bernie admits it. Don’t believe me? Look up the definition of socialism—essentially: big government is the answer to all life’s problems—and look at the things (free healthcare, free college, more and more welfare for starters) Hillary and Bernie advocated on the campaign trail and have stood for in their career as politicians. I mean, we’re one step from “Vote for Pedro, and all your wildest dreams will come true.” In theory, that sounds great. Who doesn’t want free stuff? But nothing is ever free. Somebody has to pay for it—namely, taxpayers. And as more and more “free” stuff has to be paid for, more and more taxpayers become enslaved to the government, as do the recipients on the dole, clinging to the government like a toddler to his mommy. Or an addict to his stash. We actually don’t need to look back at history to see the pitfalls of socialism; we only need to watch the news out of Venezuela.

But as bleak as the lack of basic necessities like food and toilet paper are, history paints a far blacker picture of socialism for us. Even the most uneducated and ignorant among us today recognize the name of Adolf Hitler and know he was an evil man. But do they know he came to power as leader of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party—colloquially Nazis? They may recognize the name of Joseph Stalin and equate him with atrocities too. But do they know he was the leader of the Soviet Union—that is, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? Perhaps those not acquainted with “ancient” history know the names Fidel Castro and Che Guevara (he’s that bearded guy with a beret on T-shirts that clowns pulling failing grades in World Civ like to wear while they smoke pot). President Obama’s release of sanctions and re-opening of trade with Cuba has garnered much attention recently, and many of those who oppose Mr. Obama’s actions do so because the White House seems to be sweeping under the rug the brutal, socialist policies and human rights violations of Castro and folk-hero Guevara. Are you noticing a theme here? Socialism, which sounds cool to hipsters and college kids in skinny jeans or to corduroy-clad, ungroomed college professors, fails miserably in practice. Every. Single. Time. And I would defy anyone to provide me an example of a government that, when granted more power and authority, consistently became more benevolent to its citizens. I’ll wait . . .

Socialism, plainly, is un-American. Not because I say so, but because the founding fathers said so. Their purpose in revolting against Great Britain was to overthrow a government that had grown too powerful and that consistently abused its power. The Constitution was meticulously crafted not to delineate our rights as citizens, but to curtail the government’s rights over us. The intent was a free society, where men and women could live and work as they pleased, with as little intervention from the government as absolutely necessary. It was the direct opposite of socialism.

Clearly then, we must run from this. We must do whatever we can to avoid electing a socialist—avowed or clandestine—to the White House. Even if that means swallowing the bile in our throats while we pull the lever for Donald J. Trump. Right?

Wrong. Because history teaches us that as heinous as socialism is, there is perhaps an even more heinous and less American system of government we must guard against: fascism. It was a fascist, Benito Mussolini, who took control of Italy in the 1920s. (You remember Italy—pizza, crooked and crumbling buildings, the oft-forgotten member of that unholy triad known as the Axis powers.) And it was after Mussolini that Hitler modeled his movement, embracing fascist concepts of authoritarianism and nationalism. Sound like anyone you know?

Now I get it, comparing Trump to Hitler is inaccurate and unfair. As despicable as I find Donald Trump, he hasn’t committed any of the atrocities of Hitler. Then again, Hitler was just a starving artist once too. But listen to what Trump says. He wants to open up libel laws to restrict the First Amendment rights of papers and publications, and promotes censoring or firing of people who disagree with him or send out mean Tweets about him (the poor thing). He stood on a national debate stage and vowed that he would make the military follow his orders to break the law. His rhetoric about illegal immigrants evokes mental images of concentration or internment camps in the minds of many. He talks about women the way I talk about, well, fascists. Does this sound presidential? No, it sounds more like Kim Jong-un. Quick, somebody check which system of government they have in North Korea!

But more disconcerting than Donald Trump is, as I touched on before, his legion of zealots. Now, you can argue that not all Trump supporters are mindless zombies pledging allegiance to their dear leader like Ann Coulter. Fair. I would agree. It’s just that none of the mild, reasoned ones are on Twitter. But seriously, look at some of the rhetoric that rolls off the #TrumpTrain. So many Trump backers are so angry, so vindictive, so insistent that Trump will make America great again that they are defending and endorsing his fascism. They don’t care how he treats people, what he really believes, what he might do, just so long as he gets elected to start winning—whatever that means. They are so busy shoving each other out of the way to get in line to kiss his ring that they fail to realize they are promoting tyranny! Despots are supposed to usurp power in a bloody revolution; they aren’t supposed to be swept into power by a wave of fanatical minions. But wait, where have we seen that before? I think it rhymes with Gerlin, Bermany.

There are only three somewhat viable candidates for president at this point—Trump, Clinton, and Sanders. A fascist and two socialists, and no that isn’t the start of a joke. (Well, it is, but the joke’s on us.) I cannot in good conscience—heck, in a conscience on the morality scale of Barack Obama—choose the lesser of these evils. I will not choose fascism to avoid socialism, nor will I choose socialism to avoid fascism, because I’ve learned my history. And because there will be no United States to save the world when we fall. There are no more Allied Powers. We are the cavalry, and we’re on the verge of horse-trading everything but our spurs for a bottle of magic cure-all elixir off the back of a gypsy’s wagon. And that is why I write this—why I’ve written in the past. It’s not to prove a point or start a fight, not for catharsis. It is in the hope that we will awaken as a nation, not to take sides between two equally abhorrent choices, but to reclaim our American values of constitutionalism, conservatism, capitalism, and Christianity. These are the “4 Cs” on which the American idea—that which makes our nation great—was built. And they are the 4 Cs on which it will survive, if indeed it does.

If we cannot reclaim this election, and I don’t think conservatives can, we are left with two choices—our real decision in November, 2016. Will we throw in with a known evil, with someone who is detestable and whose rule could potentially destroy America as we know it, to stop another candidate? Or will we boldly stand and reject them all? Will we stand on our values, on our principles—will we cling to them, being an unadulterated, uncompromising voice against the tumult? Will we be a grassroots movement that refuses to be silent, that refuses to let evil run amok as it did in 1930s Europe? Will we fight to our dying breath—literally, if it comes to that—to ensure that liberty is still available for our children? As I wrote a few weeks back, I don’t know all that taking such a stand entails. But I know exactly what not taking it entails, and that is why I am #NeverFascism and #NeverSocialism and #NeverTyranny, regardless of whose name or face fills the vignettes.

I leave you with the words of Ronald Reagan, the most talked about former president during this election cycle. Let them be our rallying cry:

“You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children's children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.”

I’m writing this to Christians—to Christ-followers (it’s the definition of the word) or those who claim to be. If you don’t consider yourself part of that group, you’re certainly welcome to read on, but understand this isn’t written with you in mind.

I am going to offend a lot of you with what I say here, but that’s okay because it needs to be said. And, frankly, some of you need to be offended—you need to be slapped upside the head (lest I be accused of inciting violence, I mean that figuratively). You have fallen for a lie from the devil, a lie—like so many of his—swaddled in truth and half-truth and warm, fuzzy sentiments. You have been deluded into thinking it is okay to be gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. You have bought the world’s argument that it is who someone is, that they can’t help it, that it’s not a choice. You have been swayed by culture, and instead of speaking out against homosexual behavior because doing so is “intolerant” or “ignorant,” many of you have actuallydefendedit, have condoned it, have sanctioned it—if not by your words then by your actions. And in failing to stand up for biblical truth, you have played a hand in letting the LGBT agenda run amok—an agenda that now (backed by the President and the Department of Justice) considers it a violation of civil rights to ban teenage boys from using the same bathroom or locker room as teenage girls. We are being overrun by lunacy, and you’re not a rock diverting and damming the river but a piece of driftwood floating along with it.

The Bible is explicitly clear that homosexuality is a sin (Leviticus 18:22; I Corinthians 6:9; I Timothy 1:9-11; Jude 1:7). The Bible is explicitly clear that God created males and females (Genesis 1:27; Matthew 19:4), not gender-indeterminate humans. The Bible is explicitly clear that God knit eachperson together in the womb, creating them to be who He wanted them to be (Psalm 139:13-16)—meaning the “plumbing” they have is what they’re supposed to have, and what they don’t have isn’t. The Bible is also explicitly clear that God doesn’t tempt anyone or cause them to sin (James 1:13; see also I Corinthians 10:13), and if homosexuality is a sin (which the Bible says it is) God doesn’t make anyone “that way”—doesn’t make them sin by being who they are. Sin is a choice (James 1:14-15). The Bible also says that God has given people over, because of their sins, to sinful desires (Romans 1:24, 27), allowing them through their free will to plunge into those sins headlong, with due penalty.

What isn’t explicit in Scripture, and what you will never, ever find in the Bible, is ANY hint or suggestion whatsoever that any of these things are acceptable or appropriate.

So why do so many Christians bend over backwards to appease a culture—following its god—that not only “[continues] to do these things, but also [approves] of those who practice them” (Romans 1:32)? I think it is because they have gotten so focused on love and grace, they have lost sight of righteousness and justice and wrath. God is love, and He loves everyone—including gay and transgender people—and Christians should love them too. But make no mistake, God does not love what they do. He hates it with a righteous, holy, just hate, the same as He hates all sin and wickedness. The same way Christians should hate all sin and wickedness.

Admittedly, this “love the sinner, hate the sin” concept is a hard one to fully grasp, much less practice. Many Christians do a poor job of separating one from the other. But the solution is not to condone behavior that is contrary to God’s Word. Tolerance, the buzzword of the day, means “willingness to accept feelings, habits, or beliefs that are different from your own”1 according to Merriam-Webster. Sadly, we (as the church and as a culture) have confused acceptance with agreement. Tolerating someone with a different point of view does not mean you have to agree with that point of view or even consider it valid. It means you allow it to exist. And tolerance goes both ways. Where are the cries for the LGBT community and its advocates to tolerate contrary beliefs, like biblical ones? But I’m getting off topic.

Tolerance (according to the cultural definition of the word) of homosexuality is not a biblical idea. A lot of Christians like to cite the account of the woman caught in adultery (John 8) as an example when Jesus didn’t judge a sinner, but instead “let her off.” But read the whole story. Pay close attention to Jesus’ words in verse 11: “Go now and leave your life of sin.” Jesus didn’t tell the woman it was no big deal that she had committed adultery because He was full of love and acceptance and tolerance. He did what He has always done and still longs to do—He offered forgiveness, a second chance. But He also made it clear that her behavior was not okay.

Jesus also ate with tax collectors and sinners, people claim. And they’re right. He did. But He didn’t accept their behavior. Instead, He told the Pharisees that He dined with such people because “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” (Luke 5:31-32) Jesus’ message was never one of tolerating sin of any kind. Rather, it was always a call to repentance and faith in the Savior who came to “[take] away the sin of the world.” (John 1:29)

I realize I’m being rather assertive and dogmatic in this post. Too much so, you may say. But in standing with the Word of God, it isn’t possible to be too rigid. There are plenty of issues that leave room for interpretation, for personal conviction by the Holy Spirit, for disagreement. This isn’t one of them. There isn’t even a hint of gray. The shades are pitch black and pure white. Like I said, this post may offend some of you. It might cost me friends. I’d rather it didn’t, but I’m willing to pay that price, because I am 100% confident I’m standing on truth and because this message needs to be spoken. How are we as Christians supposed to reach the world with the glorious message of God’s salvation through Jesus Christ if we’re busy telling people their sin isn’t so bad? No, we shouldn’t be chasing people around with Bibles, ready to bash them over the head for their transgressions. Yes, there is a time and place for tact. But there is also a time and place to draw a line in the sand. Actually, let me correct that. The line in the sand has already been drawn by God. There’s a time and place to pick the right side of the line and to plant our feet firmly in the sand. This is such a time. This is a time—as it always is—to stand up for the truth of God’s Word, to refuse to back down, water down, or cave in the least. It is a time to “[speak] the truth in love.” (Ephesians 4:15). Sadly, I think too many Christians have become so focused on being loving in what they say, of being so careful not to offend anyone or intrude on anyone’s “safe space,” that they have left truth by the side of road and wandered deep into the weeds. I refuse to be such a Christian.

Those who do speak out against homosexuality are often labeled as bigots, called ignorant and judgmental, or are accused of hate speech. You may want to apply some of those labels to me and claim some of those things about me now. So I encourage you, reread this post. Point out where I’ve incited hate. Point out where I’ve judged (as opposed to merely relating God’s judgment as revealed in the Bible). Point out where I’ve missed the biblical call to tolerate homosexuality or where I’m ignorant of what the Bible says. I don’t issue that challenge lightly. I “take heed lest [I] fall.” (I Corinthians 10:12, NKJV) But I issue it because I am sure, that in this case, I’m in agreement with the Word of God.

This post would be incomplete if I didn’t point out two things in closing. One is that calling out homosexuality as a sin, that standing up for biblical definitions of sex and gender and sexuality, does not give a person the right to hate, harass, persecute, or mistreat anyone. Again, read what I’ve written; I haven’t called for that. As I said above, God loves everyone and we should too. But too many Christians can’t seem to find their way to love someone and yet call a spade a spade.

Two, while it is clear from Scripture that it isn’t okay to be gay, it is also clear that it isn’t okay to have heterosexual relations before or outside of marriage. It isn’t okay to divorce, except in the case of marital unfaithfulness. It isn’t okay to be a thief, a liar, a murderer, to slander or gossip, or to disobey one’s parents. The Bible lists numerous commandments of unacceptable behavior, numerous sins. God’s standard is complete and total perfection, because He is completely and totally perfect. None of us can reach such a high bar. None of us can come close. And no matter how often or in what ways we fail, it is never okay. Scripture is clear on that. It is also clear in providing a way to make it okay. It tells us that “God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16) That is the gospel message, the message Christians are to be living and sharing. Yes, it is a gospel of love for the sinner. But it is also a gospel of recognition and admission of sin by the sinner, and of the “unokayness” of that sin. If we leave out either, the gospel we preach “is no gospel at all.” (Galatians 1:7)

The Choice is Yours . . . Or Is It?

Did you choose God or did He choose you?

Did God ordain your life so that you would end up in heaven, or did you willfully accept the salvation he offered?

This is a debate that has raged for centuries in churches and Christian circles. Some would argue that God arranged all the events of history, from start to finish, and you and I are merely actors on a stage, delivering our lines with no real choice to do so or not. They point to Scripture like Ephesians 1:5 or Romans 9:11-24 and ask how any person “dead in [their] transgressions and sins” (Ephesians 2:1) could ever quicken themselves to choose God.

Others counter that we are moral free agents, and that God doesn’t force anyone to accept Him or reject Him but leaves the choice up to each one of us. They quote I Timothy 2:4 and II Peter 3:9, saying that God “wants all men to be saved” and doesn’t want “anyone to perish” and thus wouldn’t choose hell for anyone, and cite repeated scriptural calls to believe or receive the gospel.

Who’s right? Is it that simple of a question? And does it really matter?

First, I think we need to clear up a common point of confusion. Romans 8:29-30 states, “For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.” Too often, I hear people conflating foreknowledge and predestination. But the two are shown here to be sequential—God’s predestination follows His foreknowledge.

Let me give you an example as means of illustration. It isn’t perfect, but it hopefully clears a somewhat muddy stream. I’m a huge college football fan, particularly of the Nebraska Cornhuskers. I inherited my love for the Huskers from my grandpa. When we get together, we often watch old VHS “films” of past Nebraska games. I’ve watched some of the more legendary contests, such as the 1995 Orange Bowl, a dozen or more times. Now, imagine for a moment that you and I sat down to watch the tape of that game, and midway through the third quarter, I told you the following: Nebraska will switch quarterbacks, score two touchdowns on back-to-back drives, convert a two-point attempt, and intercept a pass to turn a 17-9 deficit into a 24-17 victory. Then I gave you the play-by-play breakdown that would ensue and quoted, word-for-word, some of the commentary by the broadcasters (Yes, I could actually do it). Then you sat beside me and watched it all play out exactly as I said it would, down to the specifics of each play and verbatim commentary. Having just witnessed me looking into the future and predicting what would happen with great specificity, would you conclude that I had in any way impacted the outcome of the game?

Now, I realize this is a flawed example in that the future I’m speaking of is actually an event from 20+ years ago being replayed, and thus not really the future. (Nor am I omnipotent.) But the analogy shows how God isn’t bound by linear time constraints. He exists outside of time and space, and thus is able to see the beginning from the end. Just as I know what is going to happen in the future (because I’ve seen the game previously), God knows what is going to happen in the future (because He’s seen “the game” in the future). And just as my knowledge in no way impacts the event, so God’s knowledge of what will happen doesn’t necessarily impact what does happen.

Let me offer another example. You walk into the kitchen to get something to drink. You open the refrigerator and are faced with a choice between water and milk. You choose milk. From before the creation of the world, God knew you would choose milk. Had you chosen water, He would have known that. Either way, He didn’t make the choice for you. He merely knew ahead of time what choice you would make because, again, He isn’t bound by linear time constraints as we are.

Apply that now to far more substantial topics than football games and refreshments. From the beginning of the world and even before, God knew which humans would choose to receive His gift of eternal life and which would reject it. Foreknowledge—that is, knowing ahead of time—and predestination—that is, determining what will happen—are two very different topics. Just because God has foreknowledge, doesn’t mean He predestined something to happen.

In light of this passage in Romans, other biblical texts referring to God’s predestining, ordaining, or choosing also fit, I believe, with man’s free will. Scripture is clear that God works in the hearts and lives of people (John 16:8-10; Philippians 2:13) and that He hardens hearts (Exodus 9:12; Joshua 11:20). It is also clear that no person can seek out God and His salvation on their own, that is, without Him first seeking them (John 6:44). But what Scripture doesn’t ever tell us is that God predestines some people to be saved and some people to go to hell without them having any choice or say in the matter. No one will on judgment day be able to cry foul. Paul tells us in Romans that “men are without excuse” (Romans 1:20) because God has revealed Himself to them. If they choose to pursue Him, He will reveal Himself further (Jeremiah 29:13; Matthew 7:7). If they choose to reject Him, they will get the result of their choosing (John 3:18, 36).

So does it matter? Many would say no, not really, especially if you’re “in.” If you’re a child of God, what difference does it make if you chose God or He chose you? Either way, the transaction is complete. In one sense, they’re right. And such a middle course is preferential to divisive arguments that drive a wedge between people and denominations. But I would argue that it does matter, for several reasons.

One, truth and accuracy always matter. Pick your topic. As Christians, we should strive to have a well-rounded, correct viewpoint—a viewpoint backed by Scripture. In many cases—such as this—discerning what constitutes a biblical viewpoint can be challenging. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.

Two, humans are settlers. At least, this human is. If God is going to save those He has predestined and not save those He hasn’t, my motivation to reach the lost takes quite a hit. After all, if I don’t take the gospel to them, they’ll get it some other way because God has predestined them to do so. And if He hasn’t, no amount of preaching will do any good anyhow, right? I admit this is a flawed perspective, because God has clearly instructed us to preach the gospel. But as rationalizing, justifying settlers, we’d have a practical basis to do nothing. Just think, what could be a greater testimony than a bunch of Christians doing absolutely nothing at all, and thousands of people still coming to faith in Christ? (I kid, of course, but only somewhat.)

Third, if God arbitrarily sends people to heaven or hell in duck-duck-goose fashion, that means He has brought some souls into existence for the express purpose of damning them for all eternity. They have no hope. No chance to repent. No opportunity whatsoever to experience God’s grace. If that’s the case, I think it seriously calls into question our definition of a loving, gracious, merciful God. In fact, such a belief impugns the very character of God as revealed to us in His Word.

So where does that leave us? What’s the answer? How do we blend these verses that seem to say, on one hand, that God picks out “elect” persons to have eternal life and, on the other, that individuals have accountability to accept or reject Him? The best explanation I ever heard was from a pastor at my grandparents’ church. He summed up predestination and free will thusly: God’s predestination and man’s free will intersect in a way that we cannot ever as humans fully understand. Attempts, then, to fully understand it, will come up empty. That’s not to say we shouldn’t study or contemplate the idea. But we must be careful not to stray too far to either extreme—that God picks out “winners” and “losers” and determines their eternal destination as might an author with characters in a novel, or that God is removed from the equation and people seek out God on their own, without being drawn, and make a choice totally independent of the working of His Holy Spirit.

- Nathan Birr is the author of The Douglas Files series and God, Girls, Golf & the Gridiron (Not Always in That Order) . . . A Love Story. (It’s as crazy as it sounds.) He likes to ponder and mull deep things. He just doesn’t like the headache it often gives him.

The (Nearly) Naked Truth

“How can a young man keep his way pure?” the Psalmist asked. The answer: “By guarding it according to your word.” (Psalm 119:9, ESV)

That, and locking himself in his house all summer.

Unfortunately, I’m not just talking about going to the beach or watching a PG-13 RomCom. I’m talking about sitting in church on a Sunday morning in May, attending a Fourth of July picnic, or meeting up with Christian friends for dinner. From shorts that wouldn’t fit a Barbie Doll to skirts and dresses designed to tease to shirts and tops that reveal more cleavage than an Antwerp diamond cutter, women wear clothes that—as my grandma would say—“leave nothing to the imagination.”

Now, before you call me a pig and tell me to get my mind out of the gutter or start looking for a fire hose, let me tell you something about men: They are attracted to the female of the species. Now, this isn’t exactly breaking news. Nor inherently sinful. After all, God created the attraction between men and women. The old joke is that Adam called Eve a woman because he looked at her and said “Whoa, man.” Now, I happen to believe that Eve was a ditzy, Valley Girl blonde. (“Like, Adam, totally have some of this ap-ple.”) But she was probably a ten. The problem is, once Adam and Eve listened to the talking snake (face palm), sin entered the world, and the attraction between men and women became subject to perversion. It also eventually led to more men and women, and Adam’s attraction wasn’t limited to Eve but to the more sensible brunette (as evidenced by her snakeskin boots) in the next garden over. (I realize they were kicked out of the Garden of Eden by now, but roll with me.)

Fast forward a few millennia, to godly, moral, happily married men sitting in church on a Sunday who suddenly can’t help but be drawn to the bare female shoulders in the row in front of them. Or to the woman on the worship team wearing a skirt a few inches shorter than perhaps it should be. Or, for that matter, to the woman in a sweater over a turtleneck, a scarf, loose pants, and likely long underwear. To some women, this isn’t exactly a revelation. But some of you are likely turning up your nose, frowning, and thinking men should grow up or quit being pervs.

And to some degree, you’re right. It is a man’s responsibility to keep his eyes and thoughts pure. I know of men who have wandered away from a sales clerk with a low-cut blouse and left their wife to handle the transaction. I know of men who have removed their glasses at the beach. I know of men who have avoided tempting situations altogether—like coming to church where they were seeing too much skin. Not joking.

Now, clearly, men can’t avoid any scenario where they might be sexually tempted by the way women dress, especially since men’s imagination can do just fine without any help. And, as I said before, it is the man’s responsibility to resist and flee temptation. But how much of the onus is also on the women and girls to dress appropriately? And what constitutes appropriate dress?

Unfortunately, the Bible doesn’t give us specifics. The closest we get is I Timothy 2:9, which states “I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety.” (NIV) Wouldn’t a passage somewhere in one of the letters to the Corinthians specifying skirt length, neckline style, and when to wear sleeves have been helpful? Something like, “I direct women everywhere, when gathering in the house of the Lord, to wear skirts that come to the knee, be wary of white or see-through material against sunlight, and, for the love of Mary Magdalene, please conceal your bra straps.” (For the record, in the next chapter, Paul could have written to the men about pulling up their pants and not showing their “draws.”)

Like so much of the Christian life, this is a tricky issue. It isn’t fair to women to make them wear clothes that couldn’t possibly stimulate a man. It’s been tried, and the Saudis are generally considered in bad taste. But it also isn’t fair for women to dress provocatively and then tell men to deal with it, you sicko.

So where’s the line? Literally. My college once sent a young lady back to her dorm to change before class because her skirt wasn’t long enough. Is that where we need to be, with ushers turning women away because they’re showing too much leg? Should Christian women all dress like the Duggars when they go to the beach? If so, I imagine male attendance at the beach will drop rather significantly. Is the line different for different men? Do some guys struggle at the beach, whereas others don’t? Are the outfits of Olympic figure skaters or gymnasts too provocative for some men but not others? And does the venue matter? Is more revealing clothing acceptable based upon location?

A couple of friends of mine were once discussing this, and I don’t remember the conversation verbatim, but one of them essentially compared the plight of men in Hawaii with that of men in Alaska. In Hawaii, nobody wears sleeves or full-length pants. Watch an episode of Magnum, P.I. (or three, because who wants to stop after one?) Bikinis and crop tops are everywhere. For crying out loud, two coconut halves constitute a shirt! A tank top is practically prudish. A Christian guy who wants to “keep his way pure” is going to have to deal with a lot of skin, and frankly, it wouldn’t be fair to ask all the women in Hawaii to dress in long sleeves. Conversely, when the temperature is -64 in Alaska, not a lot of women will be running around showing midriff and long legs. A purity-chaser in Nome might about lose it when he sees a woman sans parka, where the guy back in Hawaii has no qualms about seeing a woman in a cutoff top and hot pants. Is one right or wrong? Is one guy more pure than the other? Is the line subjective? (I volunteer to take trips to Hawaii and Alaska to try to figure it out.)

I don’t know. I can only speak for this man. And I’ll tell you I’m more enticed by a woman in a skimpy swimsuit than a woman in jeans and a sweatshirt. And it’s a sliding scale. T-shirt and shorts fit somewhere in the middle. I know, I sound like a pig. I feel like one sometimes. Once again, I don’t have the answers. But my goal is to stimulate (bad choice of words, perhaps) all of us to think.

To men, I would say this (I, not Paul or the Lord): It is your responsibility to be pure in thought and deed. Maybe that means not going to the beach, and maybe it doesn’t. Maybe it means not watching Olympic beach volleyball or the Miss America pageant (Steve Harvey can fill you in). But, at some point, you won’t be able to avoid being visually stimulated, say when the well-endowed woman in a flattering sundress sits beside you on a warm Sunday morning. Or when a co-worker wears a skirt that shows more legs than an all-you-can-eat special at Joe’s Crab Shack. Or a college student with a scoop-neck blouse bends over to pick up a backpack. In such a situation, guess what? Still your responsibility to be pure. My suggestion, ask the One who set the standard for help meeting it.

To the women, I would say this: We don’t want you all wearing burkas. (Besides, if you do, Donald Trump will kick you out of America.) Nor do I want to incite you to obsess constantly over whether your appearance is too sensual. But I do ask that you observe a little common sense. Stop, look in the mirror. Bend over in front of it. Do you want me to see what you’re seeing? I’m not going to tell you what to wear to the beach or a pool party or a baptism service with optional swimming after, because I have no idea. But for going out on a Friday night, at work if your employer doesn’t dictate a “standard,” in church on a Sunday morning, remember that guys are drawn to the female body. It’s who we are. We can’t stop it. Nor can you stop it by what you wear. But you can maybe mitigate it a little. You can take reasonable steps to limit the potential temptation.

As Red Green would say, “we’re all in this together” as Christians. We are the (well-clothed) body of Christ. We owe it to each other to conduct ourselves chastely, but we also owe it to each other to help each other live purely. Paul warned about being a stumbling block to other Christians. And when it comes to stumbling and women, guys are a drunk leaving the bar at closing time. So help us out.

- Nathan Birr is the author of The Douglas Files series and God, Girls, Golf & the Gridiron (Not Always in That Order) . . . A Love Story. (It’s as crazy as it sounds.) He tries very hard to keep his thoughts pure, so don’t think he’s looking lustily at you. But putting something over that camisole might not hurt.

Categories

Author

I'm a thinker. For better or worse, my mind is always running. As a writer, I also love the method of communication. I think there's an artistry to it. This blog is my way of giving my constant thinking a place to express itself artistically.